Same-Sex Marriage

[Dark Jedi]

so based on what I'm reading in this thread it seems like everyone who has posted thus far (except for the guy wanting to marry his dog), seems to think that Gay marriage is an idea who's time has come. The argument seems to be about the appropriate mechanics of making it happen (state or federal intervention).

Does that sound about right?

I think thats it in a nutshell.

 

[Vihzel]

Same sex marriage must be legalized by the Supreme Court of the US. Women's right to vote was determined by the Supreme Court along with many other civil rights issues. In those times, those decisions were very unpopular with a huge portions of the US but now when we look back at them... it's surprising that it took so long and seemed so common sense.

Imagine if it was left up to the states to deal with civil rights issues. It would be very complicated if gay marriage was legal in certain parts of the US while illegal in the South. It would be like slavery being illegal in the North and legal in the South. (NOTE: I am not saying that fight for the legality of same sex marriage is the same as the fight for the illegality of slavery).

Marriage is a civil right that should not be legal in some parts of the US while illegal in other parts. Why that would be acceptable to anyone doesn't make sense to me. It would seem like a way for states to try to "get rid of" homosexuals by enacting a ban on same sex marriage.

But in the end... I'm happy because this whole thing is moving in the right direction.

 

[Bob Maxey]

so based on what I'm reading in this thread it seems like everyone who has posted thus far (except for the guy wanting to marry his dog), seems to think that Gay marriage is an idea who's time has come. The argument seems to be about the appropriate mechanics of making it happen (state or federal intervention).

Does that sound about right?

For the record, I am against gay marriage.

I do not like how the left portrays the right when we try to discuss the issue. I do not like how many gay people call us Conservatives, idiots and fools, just because we happen to disagree. I do not like the idea that we must consider transvestites and transgendered to be the same as us "normal" people. These people are not normal for any number of reasons and should not be given special rights or considerations.

If they are American citizens, they already have rights.

I do not like the idea that if I want to sponsor a Straight Pride Event, I am castigated. If gay folks can have a gay pride event, why can't we have a straight pride event without being told we are evil?

I do not like the idea that if I were to get into a fight with a gay person and if I have ever said anything negative about gay people, I risk being tried under the various hate crimes legislation/rules. If I run for office, the left sided press and many in the gay community will bring up every little joke I ever made, and use that to paint me as a evil candidate.

I do not like being told I am a homophobic because I disagree with gay people. And I do not like that so many here call gay marriage a right or suggest it is a constitutional right. Straight marriage is not a right, either, so get over it.

I do not like how most people here are arguing supposed marriage rights when gay and straight people both have the same marriage rights.

If Utah says no gay marriage through popular vote, Utah suddenly becomes a terrible homophobic state and that offends me.

Keep the feds out of it and allow the states to decide. I can't say much if it is legal. As for being legal, don't gay people have some sort of Civil Union arrangement available to them? Keep marriage between man and woman and let gays have civil unions.

Gay marriage offends many people, on so many levels.

Bob

 

[Isthmus]

Keep the feds out of it and allow the states to decide. I can't say much if it is legal. As for being legal, don't gay people have some sort of Civil Union arrangement available to them? Keep marriage between man and woman and let gays have civil unions.

Bob one question personal feelings about homosexuality and society aside, based on your last sentence it seems to imply that you wouldn't be against a civil union between same sex partners provided it wasn't called marriage. Can I assume that such a union could extend to basically all the same rights and privileges? If so then is that difference/opposition, mainly that of semantics?

I ask because this seems to be a point that IO see raised many times by folks who don't care for concept of gay marriage, but don't seem to mind when the word marriage is taken out of the equation.

Just curious.

 

[Bob Maxey]

Bob one question personal feelings about homosexuality and society aside, based on your last sentence it seems to imply that you wouldn't be against a civil union between same sex partners provided it wasn't called marriage. Can I assume that such a union could extend to basically all the same rights and privileges? If so then is that difference/opposition, mainly that of semantics?

I ask because this seems to be a point that IO see raised many times by folks who don't care for concept of gay marriage, but don't seem to mind when the word marriage is taken out of the equation.

Just curious.

I have absolutely no problem with two gay people entering into something like marriage with the same marital rights, and the same legal protection afforded legitimately married people. Same courtrooms or judges when the civil union goes south, etc.

Just do not call it marriage because that term when applied to homosexual people offends a great many people. If two men or women love each other and want to live together as 'man and wife' for lack of a better term, fine. Just do not call it marriage.

 

[Isthmus]

I have absolutely no problem with two gay people entering into something like marriage with the same marital rights, and the same legal protection afforded legitimately married people. Same courtrooms or judges when the civil union goes south, etc.

Just do not call it marriage because that term when applied to homosexual people offends a great many people. If two men or women love each other and want to live together as 'man and wife' for lack of a better term, fine. Just do not call it marriage.

So the issue is semantics then, not really opposition to the concept.

I personally have no problem with the concept or the use of the term marriage, but as a practical application, I see no problem with creating legal unions of identical legal rights to traditional marriages if it means getting the law passed. As I see it once in the books it is difficult to remove the law. people can fight over semantics later. in the mean time they will have the rights they want.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

I have absolutely no problem with two gay people entering into something like marriage with the same marital rights, and the same legal protection afforded legitimately married people. Same courtrooms or judges when the civil union goes south, etc.

Just do not call it marriage because that term when applied to homosexual people offends a great many people. If two men or women love each other and want to live together as 'man and wife' for lack of a better term, fine. Just do not call it marriage.

This is actually something I agree with you on (gasp!). I personally don't care what the hell they end up calling it, I just hope that when I find the love of my life I can settle down & enjoy everything "married" life provides.

I think the majority of LGBT folk don't really care what they call it, either. People just say the issue is about "gay marriage" because everyone understands what "marriage" is. In fact, I recall polls being done where a higher percentage of people supported gay civil unions, & a lower number supported gay marrage. In reality, it's basically talking about the same thing! The right for two same-sex people to enter a binding contract as wife and wife (or husband and husband) & be provided with all the rights as heterosexual people are given when they get married & for that relationship to be recognized no matter where you go.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

So the issue is semantics then, not really opposition to the concept.

I personally have no problem with the concept or the use of the term marriage, but as a practical application, I see no problem with creating legal unions of identical legal rights to traditional marriages if it means getting the law passed. As I see it once in the books it is difficult to remove the law. people can fight over semantics later. in the mean time they will have the rights they want.

This . This is what I was trying to say in my post. You said it a lot better than I did lol.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'd be open to a federal law legalizing same-sex marriage if it protects the rights or churches to not perform them and it protects the rights of parents to pull their children from the classroom when homosexuality is being taught.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

I'd be open to a federal law legalizing same-sex marriage if it protects the rights or churches to not perform them and it protects the rights of parents to pull their children from the classroom when homosexuality is being taught.

I'm not sure I quite understand why homosexuality is being taught in the first place? When I was in grade school & we had health class we just learned about the reproductive process. That kind of exempts gay folk, no?

 

[BiggestManEver]

I see no problem with creating legal unions of identical legal rights to traditional marriages

Separate but Equal worked so well in the past, might as well keep it up!

 

[seepage]

Let them get on with it. we wouldnt persecute someone who thought they were Napoleon.

 

[dudleesmuk]

i feel that gays should be able to have at least a civil union. i dont see why this is such a big issue. i have a problem with gays adopting children though. i do not think they should be able to have children. if you choose to be gay then ur choosing a life without procreation. cant have ur cake and eat it too.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

i feel that gays should be able to have at least a civil union. i dont see why this is such a big issue. i have a problem with gays adopting children though. i do not think they should be able to have children. if you choose to be gay then ur choosing a life without procreation. cant have ur cake and eat it too.

Disagree. Not to open up a can of worms, but for the most part gays do not "choose" a certain lifestyle. Lesbians still grow up with their maternal instincts, and gay men still want to father children. I know a few couples who have jumped through hoops to have a family, when any straight couple can get knocked up off of a one night stand. I know a lesbian couple who have been together for 14 years, and a few years ago they adopted three children from a country in Central America. I know another woman who has desperately tried to get pregnant for several years from a sperm donor. She's had a few miscarriages, but now she's pregnant again & has carried her child longer than any other, so that's a good sign.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I'm not sure I quite understand why homosexuality is being taught in the first place? When I was in grade school & we had health class we just learned about the reproductive process. That kind of exempts gay folk, no?

See the above link I provided on the Mass. case for more info. Homosexuality is being taught to more and more kids at younger and younger ages than ever before.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

See the above link I provided on the Mass. case for more info. Homosexuality is being taught to more and more kids at younger and younger ages than ever before.

I really have a hard time believing this. Are you talking about talking about issues like diversity & anti-bullying being taught? Or kids being taught TO be gay? I don't see anything wrong w/ a teacher stepping in when kids are teasing Betty Sue about having two dads, but I'd definitely have a problem w/ the more graphical parts of homosexuality. Depending on the context & age of the kids I might have a problem w/ teachers talking about the need to accept gay students. That stuff belongs at home, or at an older age when kids can figure that out for themselves.

 

[BiggestManEver]

i have a problem with gays adopting children though. i do not think they should be able to have children. if you choose to be gay then ur choosing a life without procreation. cant have ur cake and eat it too.

Oh, so I guess if you were born without working ovaries, you shouldn't get to adopt either? Or without testicles?
We need MORE parents willing to adopt, not less.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

I really have a hard time believing this. Are you talking about talking about issues like diversity & anti-bullying being taught? Or kids being taught TO be gay? I don't see anything wrong w/ a teacher stepping in when kids are teasing Betty Sue about having two dads, but I'd definitely have a problem w/ the more graphical parts of homosexuality. Depending on the context & age of the kids I might have a problem w/ teachers talking about the need to accept gay students. That stuff belongs at home, or at an older age when kids can figure that out for themselves.

Regardless of the intention of the instruction, parents should be able to pull their children out of class if homosexuality is being taught. I have no problem with a teaser being punished for their misdeeds, but I'm talking about homosexuality being taught in the classroom as a part of the regular instruction.

As far as same-sex couples adopting, I have no objections as long as religious charities are not forced to place children in said homes.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

Regardless of the intention of the instruction, parents should be able to pull their children out of class if homosexuality is being taught. I have no problem with a teaser being punished for their misdeeds, but I'm talking about homosexuality being taught in the classroom as a part of the regular instruction.

As far as same-sex couples adopting, I have no objections as long as religious charities are not forced to place children in said homes.

Can you give some examples of "homosexuality being taught" in schools? It wasn't that long ago that I was in school & I just don't see a context where this would even be brought up.

ETA: By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you that parent's shouldn't have the right to remove their kids from the class if that's being taught. I think that should go for any subject matter the parents would rather their kids learn from them & not the school system.

 

[pantlesspenguin]

For the record, I am against gay marriage.

I do not like how the left portrays the right when we try to discuss the issue. I do not like how many gay people call us Conservatives, idiots and fools, just because we happen to disagree.

For the most part, I don't think people who disagree w/ gay marriage* are conservatives, idiots, fools, etc. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. What I have a problem with are those people who actively lobby against it. They raise funds, they speak out, they vote against. I just don't understand WHY. There's that saying "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one." People fight so hard against something that won't make the LEAST bit of difference in their everyday life. Virtually nothing will change outwardly, but to millions of LGBT folk it will make a world of difference.

*marriage used for semantics, we could be talking about civil unions or whatever you want to call it

 

[BiggestManEver]

For the most part, I don't think people who disagree w/ gay marriage* are conservatives, idiots, fools, etc. Everyone's entitled to their own opinion. What I have a problem with are those people who actively lobby against it. They raise funds, they speak out, they vote against. I just don't understand WHY. There's that saying "If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one." People fight so hard against something that won't make the LEAST bit of difference in their everyday life. Virtually nothing will change outwardly, but to millions of LGBT folk it will make a world of difference.

*marriage used for semantics, we could be talking about civil unions or whatever you want to call it

This reminds me of something funny I saw. Someone had a YES ON 8 Sticker (banning gay marriage, right?). I rolled my eyes.

Then I saw the side of his car. Big banner for "Wedding Planning!"

So... this dude wants less business? Reeeeal smart there, guy.



PS: I'm pro gay marriage. I like cake. MORE CAKE! MOAR!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Can you give some examples of "homosexuality being taught" in schools? It wasn't that long ago that I was in school & I just don't see a context where this would even be brought up.

ETA: By the way, I'm not disagreeing with you that parent's shouldn't have the right to remove their kids from the class if that's being taught. I think that should go for any subject matter the parents would rather their kids learn from them & not the school system.

I provided links in an earlier post about a case parents sued the government because they wanted to pull their second grader from a lesson where a book would be read in which a prince marries another prince instead of a princess. The parents lost that suit, unfortunately.

 

[Isthmus]

Separate but Equal worked so well in the past, might as well keep it up!

Gee, why didn't you just quote a period and critique my grammar? Way to take a sentence completely out of the context of the rest of the paragraph. Perhaps you should try again and try responding to everything I said in that paragraph, which had absolutely nothing to do with arguing for a separate but equal type of policy. But please, don't let ignorant comments get in the way of a good discussion.

 

[BiggestManEver]

I provided links in an earlier post about a case parents sued the government because they wanted to pull their second grader from a lesson where a book would be read in which a prince marries another prince instead of a princess. The parents lost that suit, unfortunately.

Very glad they lost that suit! How stupid would it be if parents could pull their kids out because they didn't like what they had to read in class?

"I want my child out of this class! I hate black people so I don't want them reading To Kill A Mockingbird!"

 

[Isthmus]

Regardless of the intention of the instruction, parents should be able to pull their children out of class if homosexuality is being taught. I have no problem with a teaser being punished for their misdeeds, but I'm talking about homosexuality being taught in the classroom as a part of the regular instruction.

As far as same-sex couples adopting, I have no objections as long as religious charities are not forced to place children in said homes.

IN a private school setting, I agree. In a public school setting, if it is part of the required curriculum, then no. you can pull out, but you fail if you do. Don't forget, ignorance is not a virtue. You can choose not to share a certain opinion, but it is typically better to do so from a point of knowledge than one of ignorance.